Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450
Tort law – Negligence – Liability for injury
Facts
Two children passed across grassland which was part of a building site located on a housing estate that was in the process of being developed by the defendants. The developers had dug a deep trench for the purposes of sewage for the houses and the boy, aged five, fell in and broke his leg. The children lived locally and were in the habit of using the land to which the defendants had not taken any steps to prevent from happening. Importantly, there was no evidence that the children went to the site unaccompanied. There was a claim brought on behalf of the boy claiming for damages for the injury he sustained.
Issues
The legal issue, in this case, was whether the Corporation was liable for the injury caused to the injured child. It was particularly important to weigh to whether the children’s parents were to blame for the incident or whether the blame fell to the defendant corporation for not rectifying the trespass or protecting against the damage to the children.
Decision/Outcome
Children, as a class of stakeholder, were impliedly licenced to play on grasslands. The court considered the trench to hold danger that children would not have foreseen. However, the licensee was entitled to take into account that the children’s parents would not permit their children to play without protection in such an area. On this basis, it was held that the developer was not under a duty to take steps to reduce the danger. The responsibility rested primarily on the parents.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately describes the facts, issues, and outcome of Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450, a case decided under the common law rules governing occupiers’ liability to licensees.
Readers should be aware of an important statutory development: the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 came into force after this decision and replaced the common law categories of licensee and invitee with a unified ‘common duty of care’ owed to lawful visitors. The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 subsequently addressed the duty owed to trespassers. Phipps v Rochester Corporation therefore now has limited direct authority on the statutory duties that govern most modern occupiers’ liability disputes. However, the case retains academic and historical significance, particularly for the principle — still relevant in practice — that when assessing the standard of care owed to child visitors or potential trespassers, courts may take into account the reasonable expectation that very young children will be accompanied or supervised by a responsible adult. This reasoning has been acknowledged in later case law, including Bourne Leisure Ltd v Marsden [2009] EWCA Civ 671, decided under the 1984 Act. Students should therefore read this case alongside the 1957 and 1984 Acts rather than as a standalone statement of current law.
